>scolds Gandalf for smoking weed
>has a literal barrel of weed in his pantry
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
>scolds Gandalf for smoking weed. >has a literal barrel of weed in his pantry
>scolds Gandalf for smoking weed
>has a literal barrel of weed in his pantry
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
He kept it for when Gandalf visits him
Saru can I, just pardon my manners
Boy how you shake it, got a homie like (oh)
It's a Kodak moment, let me go and get my camera
All I wanna know is, Saru can I
it was for gandalf because he thought his friend was going to join him ;_;
this, he was going to have a nice feast with his old wizard buddy once he joined his side to take over the world
now I'm sad
>the third eagle was for sauronman
>Tolkien, long time tobacco smoker
>Haha its weed
Same thing.
It definitely has more psychological effect than tobacco. But probably less than weed unless wizards can resist the mental damage from cannabis.
He didn't inhale
Only chronic use is associated with negative effects.
tolkien yeah, but jackson 100% made it weedadjacent.
>Called weed
>Prized for its very sweet fragrance
>Fussy to grow
>Clouds your mind
It's canonically tobacco, moronbro.
>lemme tell you about something thats not in the movie bro
Stop beating round the bush and just say "I don't care for the source material"
but that's not my position
it's a position you made up and prescribed to me because you can't argue against my actual positions: serious dwarves don't work
and they don't work because people don't take manlets seriously
Are you an angry manlet, anon?
>serious dwarves don't work
Like I said, the LOTR book proves otherwise. Hell, Even Tyrion in the Game of Thrones show is a great example.
>Tyrion
the drunken dwarf?
If you started from season 5 onwards then sure. He was a lot more than that before that though.
in the first episode tyrion is established as a drunken dwarf you dumbshit
Please watch the remaining episodes and come back to me
>he doesn't become le drunken dwarf til season 5 you only saw after that
>okay hes a drunken dwarf in the first episode but you only saw that one episode clearly
lmao you're such a piece of shit it's extraordinary
Do you deliberately misinterpret posts for your day job? Like I said, watch the first three seasons of Game of Thrones and let's see if you still think Tyrion is nothing more than a "drunk dwarf"
>he has other attributes so he isn't a drunk dwarf
gimli is brave and loyal and has tons of other attributes but you ignore those but don't for tyrion because your a stupid piece of dishonest shit
Everything good about Gimli comes from the books. Hackson did everything in his power to turn him from a noble warrior to a dumb axe-swinging moron. There is ONE (1) moment where we see Gimli showing depth, and that is his meeting with Galadriel.
>he has no depth when he discovers his kinsmen are dead and cries and howls with anger in moria
>he has no depth when he acknowledges going to the black gate has basically no chance of survival but wants to do it anyways
he has way more character than legolas you're just a moron
Legolas was fricked the moment they cast that skater dude, not the script's fault
This
Gimli is incorruptible: attempts to destroy the ring
Gimli is open minded: becomes friends with Legolas
Gimli is deeply thoughtful: Gets three hairs from Galadriel when Feanor could not get even one
Gimli is well studied: He openly talks about his culture to Eowyn
Gimli above all is a loyal friend: Willing to go and die for his friend's sakes whom he's only known a couple of months
not a dwarf you idiot
literally a midget
holy fricking christ
>being this much of a semantics-obsessed pedant
You have autism.
semantic pedant?
An entire race of another species of people inspired by fables for children
versus an actual real medical condition and the affect that has on a HUMAN FRICKING BEING and his family who values pride?
Are you being serious? You're this much of a dumb frick? That's "pedantic semantics", the difference between literal race of cartoon characters for children versus an actual medical condition that affects humans?
You're serious?
>t. semantics obsessed pedantic midget
we're on the television and film board so one good assumption is that when people say things on the television and film board, in a thread about a movie, is that they are talking about film
for example I wasn't trying to say "you can not paint a picture of a dwarf. You just can't do it". One can reasonably assume this because we are on the television and film board and not a painting or art thread
see how that works?
And I gave you a "television and film" example in Tyrion. See how that works?
>people call midgets dwarfs so therefor a midget is the exact same thing as a race of dwarves
>midgets can be taken seriously so therefor a race of short people can be
you people are the dumbest fricking moron gorilla Black folk I have ever seen
I am out
tyrion is a fricking midget, not a gigachad ax wielding dervish that murders 100+ ultra strong orcs with relative ease
Prove it
>is actually so dumb they can't follow the concept that this is a movie discussion board
>this is a movie discussion board
Doesn't explain all the Warhammer 40k and Blood Meridian threads
try to keep on focus zoomie
Kiss my ass.
>Prized for its very sweet fragrance
>Fussy to grow
>Clouds your mind
where was this in this movie?
>b-but saruman said
when we actually see people smoking it their minds aren't clouded, saruman is supposed to look like an unfair dick here
>when we actually see people smoking it their minds aren't clouded
explain how you know this, these are no rabble of infrequent smokers, these are heavy users, their pipes worn and their tolerance thick
>erm "wherefore" obviously means "where" it's litcherally in the word, bro
for its very sweet fragrance
marijuana smells like shit
there are so many different types of marijuana now
they contain very different terpene profiles, and smell totally different too
Okay, but I don't think it's still commonly held that it's "prized for its very sweet fragrance". Besides being different, are there any actually like that? I honestly doubt it.
In any case
>many different types of marijuana now
>now
the books were being written about 80 years ago lol
>the books were being written about 80 years ago lol
>implying Elf magic wouldn't catalyze development of dank weed strains
>Elf magic
Best they can do is potatoes. Or maybe that was from Numenor.
>are there any actually like that?
yes definitely. weed used to have just a few prominent types of odor (typically a pungent "skunky" smell)
now with selective breeding dozens of different trace odorous compounds have been maximized or blended in different amounts producing a huge amount of combinations
a really well grown Super Lemon Haze for example has an incredible sweet and tangy citrus aroma I would "prize" over other types
Well fair enough, my doubt was unfounded then. Glad some advancements have been made.
hobbits were smoking hemp.
Tom Bombadil had the good shit
>ywn get to dab with sauronman
Bring wood and oil
kek
Specifically he said that hes was smoking too much.
>Sauron
>Saruman
Really? The guy that betrays them to join Sauron is literally called Sauron's Man?
They were both Maiar under Aule, Aule msut have named everyone Sauron, Sruman, Sauronis, Suradriel, Sauragonrn, Saurond
no, he's Dinosaur-man. He was a dinosaur-maiar before given human form and sent to Middle Earth
>corrupt advisor to the King is literally called Snaketongue Backstab
fricking Tolkehack
We must blaze with him, Gandalf.
It'll make us wise, my friend.
>weed
tobacco, not marijuana
>mfw stoners are too braindead to read
Why did Peter Jackson direct Merry and Pippin to act stoned then?
because tobacco use would make the films rated R.
bullshit. The studio execs had no problem with the excessive smoking seen throughout the trilogy.
Hackson also made up dialog like "Toss me!" and turned Gimli from a noble dwarf to comic relief. Not all of Hackson's decisions were good.
I'd like to see you make a better adaptation.
Not an argument.
Jackson is completely within his right to have pipe-weed represent weed, even if Tolkien never mentioned cannabis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
Bullshit. You could make the same argument to justify the Black folk in Rangz of Powah
Not really. It's a fantasy setting based on medieval Europe. Weed was there but brown faces weren't.
https://medium.com/@cannabisbloguk/how-was-cannabis-used-in-medieval-europe-3f5711244fe3
Doesn't matter. Death of The Author, remember?
Death of the Author doesn't justify adding anachronistic elements to a medieval fantasy setting.
It does. Death of The Author encompasses all that and more. It's the most hideous excuse in all of literature.
So film adaptation's can't allow ANY subtle or playful deviations that don't affect the story or immersion with the world? The director must recreate every page of the source material exactly as it was printed?
Yes
Is your name Christopher Tolkien by any chance?
As long as the author's intentions are carried forward and not discarded, it's a good adaptation. Tolkien was not a stoner, none of his books mention marijuana, it's against the spirit of his books to say "Gandalf was a stoner lol"
Honestly anime adaptations take the source material more seriously most of the time.
>Tolkien was not a stoner, none of his books mention marijuana, it's against the spirit of his books to say "Gandalf was a stoner lol"
There's never any scene that explicitly does that though, the most extreme thing you get is a scene of Merry & Pippin acting rowdy on the rubble of Orthanc (which there's a dozen explanations for their behavior besides DUDE WEED LMAO so it's not explicilty that) and Surman's off handed comment about Gandalf being a moron for not figuring out Bilbo had the ring.
You homosexuals harp on off handed jokes too much- It's not like there's a moronic scene where a red eyed Gandalf stumbles into the shot and goes 'DUUUDE WHERE'S THE MUNCHIES.'
Thanks for agreeing with me that there is no marijuana in LOTR.
>anachronistic elements
>fantasy setting
It doesn't matter when it appears to be set, it's a made-up fantasy world of fictional countries with a completely fictional timeline. Medieval europe didn't have fireworks either but no-one's b***hing about that.
Fireworks were in the books though.
>no brown faces
>who are the Haradrim, the Haladin and the Swarthy Men
Roland Barthes can suck my wiener.
It reflected his character development by showing that the mission mattered more to him than his pride. It did precisely the opposite of what you're moaning about.
So the mission didn't matter to Aragorn as much as Gimli? We never see Aragorn saying "Us humans are wasted on cross country" and then tripping over.
>one scene shows a dwarf that's too prideful to admit to any shortcoming relative to humans/elves
>one scene shows him swallow that pride and ask a human to throw him into a gaggle of enemies
Yeah it's funny but it's not even possible to make manlets NOT funny. The alternative is legolas who is not funny and is the exact same deadpan character throughout the movies. Gimlis opposite.
>muh character development again
Damn, look at all this character development.
Whether you like the manlet jokes or not Gimli is one of the most endearing characters because of the humor and his transition from prideful to selfless.
That's not even the argument. Getting endeared to a comedic relief does not justify character assassination. I could give Aragorn a touching backstory and then show him getting hit in the groin and making a goofy expression, the audience will be endeared to him regardless.
pretty sure after moria gimli gave up all pretense of the mission and just wanted to go out berserker style to rid himself of the depression over being the last living dwarf 🙁
>toss me into the horde idgaf
I cri every tiem
Serious Dwarves don't work. Do you take manlets seriously?
Did you see The Hobbit?
>Serious Dwarves don't work.
The LOTR book proves otherwise.
books aren't film
It definitively doesn't because Tolkien has scenes of Gimli acting like a prideful moron for levity as well
And then there is the Mirrormere scene, Gimli's most profound moment, that Hackson decided not to include.
not including the poem was a travesty but that was one of few genuine mistakes
LOTR movies remain the pinnacle of white film culture though so this manufactured plebbit attack with well thought out criticism is expected
>NOOO WE NEEDED A 10 MINUTE DETOUR FROM BEING SAD ABOUT GANDALF TO LOOK AT THE LAAAAKE
It was disjointed to the pacing of the story and would've been doubly so if put in the film
filtered
>NOOO YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. WE JUST SAW THE WONDERS OF MORIA IN THE MINES BUT WE NEED TO DO THEM AGAIN DESPITE OUR TRANSITION TO LOTHLORIEN BECAUSE.... BECAUSE WE JUST DO OKAY?
Has it ever occurred to you that Tolkien just shat a lot of locations/scenes out and crammed them into the books nonsensically because he didn't have an editor and it hadn't occurred to him at the time to write the Silmirallion and other books to cram his lore into?
Imagine not knowing the appeal of Tolkien.
>can't understand what makes Tolkien compelling to read
You are probably brown.
>Can't understand what makes Tolkien compelling to watch
You are undoubtedly not white
>n-no u!
>n no u
The difference between you and me is I understand why the films are structured differently than the books, and why both function extremely well for what they are. A giant hodgepodge of random adventures works well as a book you can put down and pick back up at anytime, but if you think there's any scenario where 90 pages of songs and poetry and random sidequests would've translated well to film you're the most autistic homosexual on the planet.
this
the LOTR movies are good movies and the LOTR books are good books
there is no way you're going to include everything from an entire book in even a 5 hour movie, literally no book to movie adaptation does that
>A giant hodgepodge of random adventures works well as a book
Does it? You said "Tolkien just shat a lot of locations/scenes out and crammed them into the books nonsensically because he didn't have an editor", which doesn't sound like it works well at all. What is it then?
Its episodic nature works as a transition between Tolkien's writing styles from the Hobbit to the trilogy, but as it's own standalone thing it'd be a goddamn mess. Hence the need to cut out the most 'Hobbity' parts of the book in an adaptation, which you'll notice there's less and less of those in the other two books as Tolkien refines his adult writing style and came up with the giant Silmarillion net to chuck every idea for a chapter he comes up with that deviates too far from the central narrative
>which you'll notice there's less and less of those in the other two books as Tolkien refines his adult writing style
Wrong. It was always one book. The publisher insisted on a trilogy because of binding issues.
they could've just printed the text in Israeli Legal Font size in a notebook
>AKSHUALLY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ONE BOOK
Uhh okay? Still doesn't change he more or less wrote the whole thing in order, and came up with the idea for the Silmarillion in about the middle for it like I said.
>and came up with the idea for the Silmarillion in about the middle for it like I said.
Tolkien had been working on the Silmarillion LONG before he began the LOTR.
>'Hobbity' parts
>you'll notice there's less and less of those in the other two books as Tolkien refines his adult writing style
he didn't just pump it out and publish it as is, he edited it you know
I believe the 'Hobbity' parts which then later decline are intentional because it acts as a transition from the previous work, because in the narrative things become more serious over time, and because physically they move from familiar and less troubled environments to hellish and war-torn settings.
>Its episodic nature works as a transition between Tolkien's writing styles from the Hobbit to the trilogy
I just realized I skimmed past this and I agree.
(doesn't really change my post though)
the shift in writing style was done very deliberately and you can measure it every time the plot crosses an interstice (old forest/tom bombadil, moria, lothlorien)
tolkien's editing style was also completely insane. he would write himself into a hole and just start over, leaving tons of unfinished versions of lord of the rings behind. he definitely did start off with a much wackier and lighter tone in the early drafts, but i don't think the earlier chapters are lighter because he was still 'figuring out' an adult writing style
>came up with the giant Silmarillion net to chuck every idea for a chapter he comes up with that deviates too far from the central narrative
not sure if this was you, but if it was, the silmarillion and every story in it significantly outdates lord of the rings or even the hobbit. the quenta silmarillion's story was pretty much set, though he beefed up some characters like sauron in his post-lotr writings
I agree completely.
>not sure if this was you
no, that was the guy I was replying to.
I probably confused you because I replied to myself to clarify that I missed a part of his post, but that ultimately it didn't actually change anything I was saying.
Tolkien is good to watch. It is Hackson who is difficult to tolerate, which is also why the Hobbit trilogy was so godawful, too much Hackson and not enough Tolkien.
>It is Hackson who is difficult to tolerate, which is also why the Hobbit trilogy was so godawful, too much Hackson and not enough Tolkien.
Jackson had next to nothing to do with the Hobbit movies, you moron. The studio brought him on last minute after they kicked out Del Taco and ran the production pretty much entirely over his head while he fricked around with his 3d cameras and pestered them to keep filming to New Zealand. He rolled over and let them do pretty much anything they wanted since they constantly hung the threat over his head to take filming out of New Zealand, which is more or less all he cared about at that point since he didn't even want to make the movies.
Whatever, the point is the Tolkien bits are the only tolerable parts of the LOTR films.
And my point is the Jackson part of LotR already existed in Tolkien's work in spirit, was added to make a functional film, and you're an autistic Black person for not being capable of picking up on that.
More like Mirrormeme amirite fellas?
oh boy a turbobrainlet, remember when gimli in the prior movie literally said no one tosses a dwarf and risked life and limb over pride to make a jump that nearly killed him?
he has learned to trust his friends, also to those saying dwarves aren't serious i think the hundreds of orcs that got chopped up with a fricking ax took the dude seriously
no they didn't, they got stabbed in the nuts and went "OYYYYY RIGHT IN ME GONADS!!!" and then Gimli started falling all over the place while orcs died comedically around him
How does any of that not make him comic relief?
They were drunk obviously.
he was holding it for a friend.
It’s a weed smoker thing. Saruman prides himself on being able to handle the weed smoke and is trying to pull Gandalf’s leg and make him think he’s soft.
He was an hypocrite, he enjoyed the mortal pleasures of eating, drinking and smoking as much as Gandalf the Grey. The only difference is that when Gandalf becomes White he's purified of the addictive properties of those pleasures so he's able to enjoy them with restraint.
Saruman didn’t smoke ganja that day so he feels he is better than Gandalf
Antiweeds are usually as bad or worse about it than stoners are
I knew a cop who loved hassling weed heads and straight up told me if they have a John Lennon or Beatles sticker he looks for reasons to pull them over and search their car
Surprise surprise, he fails the drug test and gets ejected from the police. homosexual spends his next ten years bagging groceries. I wish someone ran with a Lennon sticker ran his ass over in the parking lot.
> homosexual spends his next ten years bagging groceries.
did you just come up with the story in your head? how old are you?
kek is little piggy getting mad?
oink oink motherfricker
wizards are allowed to smoke weed
He was high and trolling Gandalf knowing he would be aware of the irony that Sauron's Man himself partakes.
Sauroman was always eternally seething at Gandalf while also trying to copy him in secret.
How is it weed in the movies?
Boromir did nothing wrong.
the bong of gondor!
>‘Loud and clear it sounds in the valleys of the hills,’ he said, ‘and then let all the foes of Gondor flee!’ Putting it to his lips he blew a blast, and the echoes leapt from rock to rock, and all that heard that voice in Rivendell sprang to their feet.
>‘Slow should you be to wind that horn again, Boromir,’ said Elrond, ‘until you stand once more on the borders of your land, and dire need is on you.’
>‘Maybe,’ said Boromir. ‘But always I have let my horn cry at setting forth, and though thereafter we may walk in the shadows, I will not go forth as a thief in the night.’
....based...........
>hoping for comfy LOTR thread
>it's filled with moronic stoners
Why are they like this? Stick to your DUDEWEED comedies and leave us fantasy nerds alone.
>we have sauron's man cornered in his tower
>we need him to tell us what The Enemy, who has for the past 500 years or so been zerg rushing Osgiliath and Minas Tirith, is planning
yeah I never got that. Why did they act like Sauron was going to do some sort of deceitful play and they needed to figure it out?
I never really thought about it. What did they really expect?
>he wants to conquer the world
>and he wants his ring back...
>MY WORD
i mean he scolds gandalf for smoking hobbit tier shit when obviously they should be smoking those loud istari packs
what a godawful thread
you gays should be ashamed of yourselves
We're dealing with a born in the wrong generation type contrarian who thinks almost universally praised movies are bad, it's not gonna get much worse than that
i said "gays" not "gay", that includes you my heckin dude.
>heckin
>you're a gay
>inb4 i was being a gay on purpose
this explains why characters are always touching things they shouldn't and knocking stuff over
Who does that apart from Pippin?
And all the snacks
>dude, it’s time for mid morning tea and Doritos
>dude!
>Frodo puts on the ring
>woah this is so far out. Sam can you see me?
>falls asleep
Why is stoner comedy so cringeworthy?
Because stoners make it their entire personality.
Why didnt Saruman just tell him about the weed?
he didn't like Gandalf and was jealous of him
what was his fricking problem?
Was it all just a dream?
So one day, Saruman just walked into Orthanc and decided it was his, including the Palantir. Why didn't the other wizards do this to other towers and places? Radaghast could have lived in Sauron's empty tower, made it a beautiful sanctuary for all his animals. Sauron's not going to move back in when there's wizards there.
They do there's a swamp between bree and Rivendell that Radagast chills in
That's... not a well known and central tower such as Isengard and Orthanc? No one can even go past Isengard without Saruman's notice. There are other ancient towers and constructions that the wizards could take as well.
what would the others do with it?
gandalf was a wanderer and never stayed in one place, even back in valinor - he didn't have any concrete dwelling
radagast doesn't have a use for a tower, he's dealing with nature, doing his own thing
who knows maybe the blue wizards have some twin towers out east or some shit
Because Sauronman's schtick was being a giant fricking loregay, so locking himself in a tower reading books all day like an edgy nerd was up his alley compared to the rest of the wizards who just kind of wandered around like hobos
We're the blue wizards named Walter and Jesse?
If only Jackson could have made a short non-theatrical mini movie about the Scouring of the Shire instead of killing off Saruman so stupidly
Scourging is a stupid subplot anyway. It undermines the entirety of the main narrative so Tolkien can jerk himself off more to deforestation le bad subplot.
>It undermines the entirety of the main narrative
No, it doesn't. It reinforces it. The world is changed permanently. Innocence is gone forever. The Hobbits can never return to the Shire and life they once knew.
Interesting that Jackson was able to do that without the Scouring. Makes me think it was not needed. I have no issue with the Scouring mind you, it's just not required.
>The world is changed permanently. Innocence is gone forever.
I'm aware of what he's trying to signify moron, I'm saying it's extremely forced in a way that doesn't interact well with the overall main story.
>Well uhhh we defeated literal Satan... but what about one of Satan's moronic underlings?
>Well uhhh he was totally surrounded by Ents and should've been executed... but we uhhh let him live so he could escape... uhh just cause
>Well uhhh he really has no reason to frick up the Shire because Satan is dead and any moronic shit he tries will ultimately end with him getting killed... but the Shire's important to the readers so it has to have something bad happen to it because LE SYMBOLISM
>Well uhhh Elrond had a feeling something fricky might happen to the shire and wanted to send Merry and Pippin to warn them, but he couldn't send anyone else in their stead because uhhhhhhhhh... UHHHHHHHHHH
i don't think so, it reinforces frodo's loss of innocence and the fact that the hobbits can never go back
the idea of sacrificing your own innocence to protect the innocence of others is pretty central to the legendarium. the fact that those innocent people will never, because of their disregard for the outside world, understand what you went through and you sacrificed. yeah, it pulls pretty directly from tolkien's own experiences in ww1, but it's not so small as to just be anti-industrialist. it works well for me, anyway
>the fact that those innocent people will never, because of their disregard for the outside world, understand what you went through and you sacrificed
This is still the case without the Scouring.
I'd argue even moreso, because the Scouring causes the Shire Hobbits to experience actual hardship.
Contrast that with picrel.
>I'd argue even moreso, because the Scouring causes the Shire Hobbits to experience actual hardship.
Black person what was the entirety of all 3 books if not constant actual hardship for all 4 hobbits? The journey itself demonstrated the Hobbits were capable, hence why Scourging feels so tacked on
>Shire Hobbits
I'm talking about the Hobbits in the shire, not Frodo Sam Merry and pip.
>I'm not talking about the main characters, I'm talking about all the literal whos that were in the first 50 of 1100 pages that we never once circled back to
Do you get why I'm saying it feels disjointed and doesn't interact well with the rest of the series?
Don't you mean scolds Radagast?
Gandalf for smoking weed
>>has a literal barrel of weed in his pantry
His pantry feeds his entire staff
>staff
How much does Saurman pay? Does he offer a good benefits package?
yeah, I'm literally agreeing with you that the Scouring doesn't add anything to the theme of "not being able to return home".
Maybe Gandalf keeps giving him barrels every year for Christmas and that was his way of passive aggressively saying it's a really stupid present to give since all they do is sit unopened piling up in the pantry
>unopened piling up in the pantry
Gandalf probably thinks those are new barrels that Saruman bought for himself.
Gandalf is pretty slow after all.
its tabacco leaf not weed. quiten was right about you fricking stoners